3RU7AL

Good concept, tho without input of all humans ---ergo all human cultures---, we may still have some parts of the Trinary Core Code that have uncalled for cracks in the code.

Yes, I agree and it is those instincts that kick in more in some than others, altho when our own detriment is involved in situations where we may have a minute or seconds more to consider our options we may be allowed to override Swarm AI primary codes.

The fact that nobody wants to be unhappy is objective

Not true, Humans are not designed to be happy, or even content. Instead, we are designed primarily to survive and reproduce, like every other creature in the natural world. A state of contentment is discouraged by nature because it would lower our guard against possible threats to our survival. The fact that evolution has prioritized the development of a big frontal lobe in our brain (which gives us excellent executive and analytical abilities) over a natural ability to be happy, tells us a lot about nature’s priorities. Different geographical locations and circuits in the brain are each associated with certain neurological and intellectual functions, but happiness, being a mere construct with no neurological basis, cannot be found in the brain tissue.

Next, if only a few humans on Earth, the boy or girl are assumed to have better chance of actually surviving, than infant, so baby is my choice to go before boy or girl

A moral claim cannot be false.

In the same way a statement of opinion cannot be false.

A moral claim cannot be true.

In the same way a statement of opinion cannot be true.

Then what is morality? If you can’t be right or wrong?

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m sure the good book mentions something along the lines of obeying the law of the land so that’s your answer.

In the Swam Intelligence video the "the boy" was chosen to be run over by car, but then again I dont have list of all the AI options in front of me.

the y chromosome came from originally

What if you could make an objective case for the goal, like you would be unhappy for eternity if you don’t have this goal. The fact that nobody wants to be unhappy is objective.

P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority.  (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)

False.

Actually we don’t

Unfortunately in this game of life the ultimate answer is unknown to me, I just know the basics. Take the Ten Commandments for example.

In the move the 'Titanic' it was women and children first, not self first fro men, tho we saw in movie some men trying to get into the lifeboats.

1} humans will trample their own family to get to oxygen as core genetics kick in,

2} humans will trample others to save their family first,

3} humans will destroy others property to protect their own property?

P1. If atheism is true,

our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed

to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is,

but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA. 

P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth. 

P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.

P4. Therefore if atheism is true,  there is no justification for believing anything to be true.

P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.  

P6. Therefore atheism is false.

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF (2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY (3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

Ok fine, but then step outside of your presented trinary bubble and see how many  more considerations can be added to your code of three.

On the other end we have those who feel they must know, and those type are usually more limited to either yes or no answers to any set of circumstances, and that is less than considerate of a more wholistic set of circumstances.

I don't need to...Because you can't find a recipe in a dictionary.....You answered the question.

Then every time you make your “moral” claims you’re wrong it’s that simple. Do you realize what you’re saying here? Your essentially saying your wrong about every belief you hold.

Any is - you cannot get an prescription of reality from a description of reality. 

Objective morality means that the laws of morals are true independent of anything else, they are like the laws of gravity and the like - however - within any moral argument oughts or in this case, the goals, are subjective - because goals are intrinsically subjective, that means that any morals or anything telling you what you ought to do cannot be objective.

In other words, your syllogism is neither valid nor sound.

We accurately predict our own actions in everyday life. And you’re saying we can’t morally judge until it happens.

What’s the point of asking me the same question twice?

we choose different ones to describe different things like objectivity and subjectivity.

The idea is to ensure you are at least trying to vote fairly for the debate in question, as opposed to voting as an ideologue."

No it means you will be sad if you don’t live the correct lifestyle.

a lifestyle that leads to eternal happiness. 

My explanation of objective morality that you asked for.

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump.

Jan 6th was a lynch mob explicitly seeking the public execution of Pence and Pelosi,

The key point about deontological ethics is not a specific code (this old book says this or that).

The key point about deontological ethics is that your (personal) ethical code must be coherent.

Deontology would dictate that lying is bad regardless if it saved a persons life, correct? 

Why do you think consequentialism is incoherent and not you?

Then what do I need to elaborate on?

You really only need one rule.

NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

I think history has shown a need for way more than that, given that a vote which contains no insults can be horrific (such as ones which make zero references to the debate in question, or write their own arguments instead of grading the debate in question).

Regarding your earlier comment that the rules should be established such that they "could be programmed into a computer"

Due to the subjective nature of most debates and likewise their votes, I disagree.

Certainly a set of boolean functions to look for vote length and keywords would be possible, but would be ripe for easy manipulation via copy/pasted word salad. Granted, if anyone put the work into designing a spreadsheet for it, I would gladly try it out, and probably at least incorporate it as an initial quality control check on more complicated votes.

Debates are usually pretty subjective territory, so moderation for them needs to be able to read context in a way computers can't (at or least would be extremely difficult).

While mistakes will inevitably happen, we honestly try. That we're some of the most prolific voters ourselves, should lend some authority from experience on the matter. That our own votes are sometimes deleted does prove we are not perfect, but also shows that we strive to be fair.

You don’t understand happiness?

Okay, so what do you think of my explanation?

Capitalism is a rule of nature; Socialism is an attempt to hyperevolve past our base nature, to stop us wanting to get more than others at all times, in any way accumulating more with our accumulated assets (since we are talking pre-money).

What you can do with money and interest rates already existed before, but it was literal human soldiers and workers that became the assets that were used to garner more,

rather than 'cash', literal assets were used to make more. Land, water, food, shelter and women were the origins of patriarchal capitalism and it's something that ran deep in the veins of any and all dominant/domineering empires and regimes throughout history.

It is an overassumption that we can undo that by saying 'okay, now everyone share'.

The solution was never going to be that simple, we have to fuse selfish hardwiring in our DNA and neurology with net-beneficial 'selfless' dedication to the 'whole' community and/or society.

The more mechanisms, both economically and sociologically, that there are to fuse selfish motive with benefitting the larger group, the better an overall society becomes over time.

Social Democracy is the optimal political system, you cannot change human nature just like that.

Do you actually have any refinements to suggest?

This seems more like an excerpt rather than an explanation.

Deontological ethics does not necessarily mean all lying is bad-wrong.

Hmm sounding a bit “incoherent” there.

the road to good intentions is paved with hell.

What America saw 3 weeks ago was ugly.  Shameful mob violence to disrupt a constitutionally mandated meeting of the Congress to affirm that transfer of power. 

Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, Vietnam, China, Guyana, Nicaragua and quite a few more.

No. I accept that government must exist because we are not angels, yet. But, I disagree that government is the only answer, and that seems to be what it thinks, right now.

Every country began by socialism.

Isn't that just dwelling on the thin shell?

Actually Fauxlaw has a point. No country starts off socialist, they become it over time.